Received: from hplabs.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA04790; Thu, 11 May 1995 14:06:39 -0700 Return-Path: <westes@usc.com-DeleteThis> Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com (uucp6.netcom.com) by hplabs.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1SU) id AA063216397; Thu, 11 May 1995 14:06:38 -0700 Received: by netcomsv.netcom.com with UUCP (8.6.12/SMI-4.1) id NAA17484; Thu, 11 May 1995 13:55:19 -0700 Received: by usc.com (NX5.67d/NX3.0M) id AA16759; Thu, 11 May 95 12:56:01 -0700 From: Will Estes <westes@usc.com-DeleteThis> Message-Id: <9505111956.AA16759@usc.com-DeleteThis> Subject: Re: speaking of tides, what about 3d? To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 12:56:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <199505111903.MAA08013@elaine13.Stanford.EDU-DeleteThis> from "Kristin Michele Mills" at May 11, 95 12:08:56 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2317
'Kristin Michele Mills says:'
> > > 1. is SM tide roughly 3d ave?
> >
> > Yes, east end of the SM bridge, but Coyote and Palo Alto get pretty
> > close to the same thing.
> >
> > > 2. tides are roughly 1 hr later per day, so it looks like low tide at 3d fri
> > > will be about 1800. What all does one need to be concerned about there if
> > > you're on the water at that time and is it wise to do so?
> >
> > Calculating forward, I get a low on Friday of 1.8 at 1700.
> > Saturday: 2.1 at 1800, 2.5 at 1830.
> >
> > I consider anything less than 2.5 feet marginal and less than 2 feet I
> > won't sail there. You can launch down to around 1 foot (with a lot of
> > schlupping through the mud), but the sandbars are many. Although
> > hitting one at speed is rarely fatal, but is surely dangerous and
> > often expensive.
> >
> >
> I disagree. I was on the water at 3rd ave. sailing through the inside
> part exactly at low tide (with .9 feet) and did not hit one sand bar. You
> can sail on a lower tide especially when it is so westerly, as the worst
> sand bars are below the channel marker. I believe the 2.0 rule was more
> for the old launch site where the mud is a lot softer and harder to get
> through. The new launch is more of a shell bottom (not soft at all).
Well, yes, there is no mud to worry about at low tide *in* the channel.
Of course the last time I checked this still leaves about 3/4 of a mile
that you need to cover to get back to the beach at low tide. If you
look at the USGS maps of the area on Jack Greenbaum's home page, it is
pretty clear that the whole stretch from the channel marker to the
beach is a veritable collection of mud flats and hidden "sand"/mud bars.
Having struggled through this more times than I care to recollect, I
feel that it is both A) unsafe to sail in this area at low tide, due
to the frequent shallow bottoms of less than 12 inches; and B) a
disgusting mess to walk through any of this. I think you are wrong
that the area past the launch point is not mud. It is mud, and it is
a thoroughly disgusting and stinky mud. This is in contrast to the
stuff closer to the beach, which is more like a slime puree that wraps
up to your waist. :)
-- Thanks, Will Estes Internet: westes@usc.com-DeleteThis U.S. Computer Saratoga, CA 95070
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:29:13 PST